The Hobbit - No Spoilers

[Nazgul Girl]

We got back from seeing the new The Hobbit movie. Really, it's excellent. There are some changes in the script from the book, yes, but they had to make the story more for adults than children. It stays true to many elements of the story, and successfully expands on some backstory. The special effects are great, the wargs are very scary ( I hate movies where things pop out ), Bilbo is wonderful, Elves and Dwarves are excellent, of course, Gandalf is back, and there is a lot of backstory. The battle scenes are superb. Go and see it. It's long. Don't take the little kids because this version is waaaaay too scary for them. Even seven-eight year olds might get nightmares. But then, some resiliant kids might really love it. This movie is not a timid version. There's no sappiness as in " You've got your mother's eyes " puke as in whatever episode of Harry Potter that was.

[NastyWoman]

Looking forward to seeing it. The "kids" will be home in a week and I've told them not to go watch it -> it will be our holiday movie for this year. Did you see the special high speed 3-D version? If so, did it mane you dizzy like so many reviews claim?

[Sum Dum Gai]

We got our tickets last month and took the kids to the midnight show on Thursday. That turned out to be a mistake in the sense that our oldest fell asleep during the movie, but they both still really loved it. If you've only read the Hobbit, it will seem like they've made a lot of changes and added a lot of things, however the vast majority of what they added is back story stuff that Tolkien actually wrote. It was all added after he'd finished the Hobbit and is found in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, Silmarillion, etc. When he wrote the Hobbit the story jumps around a bit and skips whole sections. Later he went back in and filled in what happened during those skips, and they're putting all that into the movies. They did modify it a bit from the written works of course. They always do. The most notable difference to me was that the dwarves are less of the kind of bumbling goofballs they actually were in the Hobbit.

The movie is long, but it really was excellent. I'm looking forward to the next two.

[steph08]

We also saw it yesterday, and we both thought is was excellent. I won't lie - it almost brought tears to my eyes to hear the music at the beginning as they panned in on the Shire. I loved LOTR and am so happy they finally got around to doing The Hobbit.

It was quite long, but it went by very quickly.

[Nazgul Girl]

Yes, I agree. The movie was very long, but it did go by quickly. We didn't see the 3D version because I don't think 3D adds very much and I hate wearing those glasses over my glasses. They hurt my nose.

[steph08]

Ya, we didn't opt for 3D either - I was slightly worried about getting sick (the theatre we went to was IMAX 3D and those IMAX movies sometimes make my head spin) plus it costs twice as much!

DH did say to me "I didn't know this was a musical" and some movie review on the radio station I listen to also said there was too much singing. There were like two songs - and I enjoyed them! There were similar times in LOTR.

[Phoenix84]

Haven't seen it, but I'm a bit skeptical on how they'll make 3 movies out a relatively thin children's book. Though I hear they're taking some content from other works.

I read the book when I was in 7th grade, 13 maybe? It was a looooong time ago. So a lot of the details of the book are sketchy, but I remember most of the major plot points.

[thyme4change]

I heard it sucked from several unrelated sources.

[Phoenix84]

Meh, the review I saw said it was decent but not at good at LOTR, I guess I'll find out when I get around to seeing it.

[Deleted]

I really liked the hippy, psychedelic cartoon version. I'm sure I'll see the new version but the old one will probably be my fave.

[Nazgul Girl]

It's as good as the LoTR movies in many ways. A lot of the helping of the plot was actually more plot that J.R.R.T. mentioned later in his books and letters, per what my husband read. This is not a meh movie, it didn't suck, and to be honest, it blows the cartoon version right out of the water. For starters, Gollum is even better in this movie than in The Return of the King. I really was prepared to be disappointed, but boy I so wasn't...

[Apple]

I'm glad to see (almost all) good reviews. My son read the book years ago, I just found out at work that there was a new movie, so I'm planning on taking him next weekend. I liked the LOTR movies, he did too (I've never read the books, he's read all of them).

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::"We didn't see the 3D version because I don't think 3D adds very much and I hate wearing those glasses over my glasses.":::...

I saw the 3D version, and I thought the picture quality was superb. This time around, the series was shot at 48fps (instead of the regular 23.976). I am not sure if it is as apparent in the non-3D versions, but it was so smooth, at times I felt like I was watching a play. I mean it was really like watching actual people on a stage through a window, instead of the "finished film" look we are accustomed to.

I've not read the books, but I enjoyed the movie anyway. I'm looking forward to seeing what Ben. C. actually does with Smaug.

Also, the "Into Darkness" trailer was neat. Still not sure what villain is being portrayed.

[sheilaincali]

DH was really torn about seeing it because he had read some pretty mixed reviews. That being said we went to a Christmas party last night with all of our Dork friends and many of them had seen it and absolutely raved about it. Out of the 25 people there probably 12 had seen it and all 12 gave it positive reviews. Thinking we'll catch it on Christmas Day since we always go to a movie that day anyway.

[ontrack]

Dec 17, 2012 17:20:36 GMT -5 8 Bit WWBG said:

Also, the "Into Darkness" trailer was neat. Still not sure what villain is being portrayed.

I thought it was supposed to be Khan.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Dec 16, 2012 13:31:45 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

I really liked the hippy, psychedelic cartoon version. I'm sure I'll see the new version but the old one will probably be my fave.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I saw the 3D version, and I thought the picture quality was superb. This time around, the series was shot at 48fps (instead of the regular 23.976). I am not sure if it is as apparent in the non-3D versions, but it was so smooth, at times I felt like I was watching a play. I mean it was really like watching actual people on a stage through a window, instead of the "finished film" look we are accustomed to.

Crap. We're going to have to do 3D next time. Normally the picture quality isn't that great and Loop is almost completely blind in one eye so the 3D doesn't work for her. If the frame rate makes a huge difference though, we'll have to check it out.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Dec 16, 2012 6:46:02 GMT -5 Nazgul Girl said:

Yes, I agree. The movie was very long, but it did go by quickly. We didn't see the 3D version because I don't think 3D adds very much and I hate wearing those glasses over my glasses. They hurt my nose.

...it was long... and the fact that he's split it up again stinks... waiting another year, for what?

...I looked at my watch several times throughout... that's the kiss of death, imo...

[Nazgul Girl]

It was long. Yes. I didn't look at my watch. But, I don't think that the story needs to be split into 3 parts. As I posted elsewhere, they're trying to get as much Dwarven treasure as possible from the Big People....

[Phoenix84]

I didn't mean to imply it was a meh movie. The review I saw just said it wasn't as good as LOTR. Obviously that's not my opinion as I will see it next week. But I'm looking forward to it. The LOTR trillogy are my favorite movies, so I'm sure I'll like the hobbit too. It'll be an interesting experience because I didn't read the LOTR trillogy (though I did read the first book). But I read the Hobbit a long time ago. It will be interesting to see how much I recognize.

[Phoenix84]

Dec 17, 2012 17:36:33 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I saw the 3D version, and I thought the picture quality was superb. This time around, the series was shot at 48fps (instead of the regular 23.976). I am not sure if it is as apparent in the non-3D versions, but it was so smooth, at times I felt like I was watching a play. I mean it was really like watching actual people on a stage through a window, instead of the "finished film" look we are accustomed to.

Crap. We're going to have to do 3D next time. Normally the picture quality isn't that great and Loop is almost completely blind in one eye so the 3D doesn't work for her. If the frame rate makes a huge difference though, we'll have to check it out.

I always regret not seeing Avatar in 3D in theatres. I saw the boring old flat version.